We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse the International Law Office website, we will assume you are happy to receive all of our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.

Overhaul of Corporate Law Revises Company Management - International Law Office

Overhaul of Corporate Law Revises Company Management

In the context of Romania's accession to the European Union and in response
to the World Bank's reports on the compatibility of the country's legislation
with the principles of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
(OECD), which indicated a number of deficiencies in Romania's corporate governance
regulations, the government introduced major changes to the Company Law (31/1990)
with effect from December 1 2006. As most of the changes
concern joint stock companies, this update considers the implications for this
form of company.

Following the introduction of one-tier and two-tier management systems, there
are now four categories of person who can play a role in the management of a
company: the members of the board, the executive officers, the members of the
supervisory board and the members of the directorate. All such persons are
referred to collectively as 'managers'.

Management and the Company

Before the amendments were introduced, employment and fiduciary relationships
overlapped, making it difficult to assess liabilities, duties and conflicts
of interest and resolve issues relating to the dismissal or replacement of
managers, especially with regard to executive officers who were also employees. The new provisions emphasize that managers act on the basis
of a mandate granted by the company, without which they may no longer be employees
of the company. However, this provision can be interpreted as applying only
to the board of directors and the executive officers delegated by the board
to perform management duties.

The reason for this new approach seems to be that a mandate encompasses
all of the characteristics of such a relationship, including the duty to act
in good faith and in accordance with the corporate purpose, and the duties of
care and skill, disclosure and confidentiality. A relationship based on such
a mandate is also more consistent with the business judgement rule, which defines
the liability of managers for decisions taken on the basis of their business
judgement. Business decisions are assessed with regard to the standards
of knowledge, skill and competence that a manager should apply; a manager
taking a business decision on the basis of sound business judgement should not
be held liable for the consequences - even in the event of an obvious mistake
- unless certain exceptions apply. In light of the OECD's 2004 recommendations,
which partly inspired the latest amendments, it could be argued that such exceptions
include:

fraud;

conflicts of interest;

actions outside the company's corporate purpose; and

failure to exercise due care and diligence in the basic responsibilities of a
board member, which include:

attending meetings;

making an adequate effort to remain informed of the company's activities;
and

making decisions on the basis of sufficient knowledge and deliberation.

However, the following practical implications should be considered:

A mandate can be terminated more easily than an employment relationship.
The revised law states that all managers may be removed without cause by the
general meeting; they may have a right to compensation, but not to reinstatement.
An employment relationship can be terminated only through a complex procedure
based on objective grounds; abusive termination may result in the employee's reinstatement.

A mandate is more fiscally advantageous for the company, as there
are no taxes to be levied.

Companies must inform the local employment authorities if they intend to
suspend employment agreements previously concluded with managers in order
to establish mandate agreements.

One-Tier and Two-Tier Management Systems

Another significant change concerns management structure. Mirroring the developments
taking place in other EU member states, the new law offers a choice between
two administrative systems: the one-tier and two-tier systems.

The one-tier system is based on a board of directors and its executive officers.
The board members are appointed and replaced by the general meeting and the
executive officers are appointed and replaced by the board. Members of the board
may be executive officers; however, the majority of the board members must be
non-executive members if the company is legally obliged to have its financial
statements audited, in which case the board must delegate most of its management
duties to the executive officers. In the event of such delegation, the board
has exclusive competence to make a limited number of strategic decisions as
provided for by law, the company's articles of association and the decisions
of the general meeting. However, the vast majority of management decisions will
be undertaken by the executive officers, with the board taking a supervisory
role.

The company is represented in court and in its relations with third parties
by the president of the board or, where authority has been delegated to the
executive officers, by the chief executive officer. The president of the board
has representative powers in relation to the executive officers.

The two-tier system is based on a supervisory board and a directorate, with
the members of the supervisory board being appointed and replaced by the general
meeting and the members of the directorate being appointed and replaced by
the supervisory board. However, this system does
not allow members of the supervisory board to be part of the directorate. Pursuant
to the new law, the management of the company is delegated exclusively to the
directorate, with the supervisory board retaining only supervisory powers.

The company is represented in court and in its relations with third parties
by a member of the directorate chosen unanimously by the other directorate members
and by the supervisory board.

A comparative reading of the legal provisions governing the two systems reveals
the differences in the liability of board members in the one-tier system as opposed
to the directorate members in the two-tier system. On the question of supervisory
duty, the law states that board members are liable to the company for losses
caused by the actions of the executive officers or staff if such actions could
have been prevented had the board discharged its supervisory duty correctly.
Given the general principles of liability - and in the absence of provisions
to the contrary - the board's liability for the actions of company staff appears
to be subsidiary (ie, it applies only if the individual responsible cannot be
held liable) and several (where the supervision of the individual
in question was the responsibility of a certain member of the board). However,
the directorate has exclusive responsibility for the management of the company and
the chapter of the law on the two-tier system includes no provisions corresponding
to those for executive officers in the one-tier system. Therefore, it appears that the directorate
is always directly liable for managerial actions, even if it has delegated responsibility
for such actions to executive officers or employees - it is a general principle
that, in the event of unauthorized substitution, the principal is liable for
the acts of the agent.

The section of the law which covers criminal and administrative offences has
not been amended in light of the introduction of the two-tier system, which
gives rise to ambiguity in the application of certain legal provisions. The
law enumerates the parties which may be held liable for criminal
or administrative offences, identifying "founders, administrators (ie,
board members), executive officers, executive managers or... legal representatives",
but does not mention members of the directorate or the supervisory board.

The courts may interpret the term 'executive officer' - the Romanian word literally
means 'director' - as covering members of a directorate, even though such
an interpretation might be considered inconsistent with the terminology used
in the rest of the law (in which members of a directorate are referred to
as such). However, members of a directorate act as representatives of the company
and are therefore covered by the legal norms which regulate criminal liability.
As members of the supervisory board are not listed among the parties which
may be held liable for criminal offences under the terms of the law, it may
be concluded that they cannot incur such liability.

The choice of two management systems gives a company greater flexibility to
choose a structure which is appropriate to the size of its business, the spread
of its share capital and other practical needs. However, as large companies
will be subject to legal auditing obligations in almost every case, it is
reasonable to assume that only small and medium-sized companies will be able
to choose the one-tier systemwithout delegating management functions
to executive officers.

Quorum and Voting Requirements

The new provisions introduce changes to the quorum and voting requirements
for general meetings and extraordinary general meetings.

The quorum for general meetings at first call is reduced from 50% of the voting
rights to 25%; there is no minimum requirement at second call. Decisions
are made by majority. The quorum for extraordinary general meetings is reduced from 75% to 25% at first
call and from 50% to 20% at second call. Most decisions
are made by majority; however, a two-thirds majority (ie, two-thirds of the voting
rights of the meeting) is required for decisions on issues of particular importance,
namely:

a change in the company's corporate purpose;

a decrease or increase in share capital;

a change of legal form; and

a merger, division or dissolution.

A party wishing to acquire overall control of a company must control at least two-thirds
of the shares in order to ensure that the necessary decisions are adopted.

Voting rights have replaced share capital as the yardstick for measuring shareholders'
interests, which is a logical approach, especially as a company may issue preference
shares with no accompanying voting rights. Lowering the quorum requirements
will undoubtedly result in quicker decision-making processes, but companies
with widely dispersed shareholding structures should pay particular attention
to the fact that one-fifth of the shareholders may constitute an extraordinary
general meeting.

Authorized Capital

Pursuant to the provisions of the EU Second Company Law Directive (77/91/EEC),
the law also introduces a new concept: authorized capital. A company's articles
of association may authorize the board or directorate to increase the company's
share capital up to a predetermined value (ie, the authorized capital) within
five years. In the one-tier system, the board retains exclusive
competence in this area and may not delegate it to the executive officers; this
is the only way in which an increase in capital may be initiated by the board.

Minority Shareholders

The revised law gives minority shareholders more rights and greater protection.
Amendments to the agenda of the general meeting can be made by shareholders
representing - individually or jointly - at least 5% of the share capital. Furthermore,
the general meeting must be summoned whenever shareholders representing at least
5% of the share capital so request; the previous threshold was 10%. As a result,
shareholders in companies with widely dispersed share capital will find it easier
to call a general meeting.

However, not all of the changes favour minority shareholders. Previously, any
shareholder could file a claim - in its own name, but on the company's behalf
- against a director or manager for damages incurred by the company if the company
(as represented by the general meeting) did not initiate legal action. Under
the new law, if the general meeting does not initiate a claim for damages against
the founders, directors, executive officers, supervisors or financial auditors,
or support such a proposal by one or more shareholders, only shareholders representing
at least 5% of the share capital may file a claim against such persons on the
company's behalf.

Shareholders' Agreements

Previously, the law strictly prohibited voting agreements. It now prohibits agreements
to vote according to the company's instructions or proposals; however, any other
voting agreement is considered valid and binding. This welcome development brings
Romanian commercial law into line with legislation in most other EU member
states. Restrictions regarding the transfer of shares, including preferential
rights held by existing shareholders, must be expressly mentioned in the company's
articles of association.

ILO provides online commentaries as specialist Legal Newsletters. Written in collaboration with over 500 of the world's leading experts and covering more than 100 jurisdictions, it delivers individually requested information via email to an influential global audience of law firm partners and international corporate counsel. Please click here to register for the service.

The materials contained on this website are for general information purposes only and are subject to the disclaimer.

ILO is a premium online legal update service for major companies and law firms worldwide. In-house corporate counsel and other users of legal services, as well as law firm partners, qualify for a free subscription. Register at www.iloinfo.com.